On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 05:12:56PM +0200, Philipp Überbacher wrote:
> I'm just afraid that it might end up as a pretty much app specific
> thing, similar to MESS and RHSP.
That would be perfectly OK for me. I'm not after popularity,
and I'm writing these things in the first place for myself.
> What's the point of a plugin API
> 'standard' when there's a single host supporting the thing?
Apart from the host(s) I'll provide (one of which is an app on
its own, the other a pure plugin host) that would probably be
the case anyway.
Actually, for a host author implementing this standard directly
would be easier than trying to squeeze it into an existing LV2
framework - some things are quite different.
> It doesn't help plugin developers either if they have to
> chose between 5-7 plugin APIs, knowing that, whatever they
> chose, only a, often tiny, subset of programs will be able
> to load the plugin.
That again is not something that keeps me awake at night.
In fact it would provide a form of natural selection. The
main point of this series of plugins will be *quality*.
I'm not really waiting to see the N-th 'I-dont-understand-it-
but-copied-it-from-some-textbook' algorithm being added to it.
There are already enough of those, and that in itself is a
good reason for not wanting to be associated with existing
standards.
Ciao,
-- Je veux que la mort me trouve plantant mes choux, mais nonchalant d’elle, et encore plus de mon jardin imparfait. (Michel de Montaigne) _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-devReceived on Thu Jul 8 00:15:03 2010
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jul 08 2010 - 00:15:03 EEST